talkmagic.co.uk

I can agree with you, tom - truly I can.

People who follow the teachings of a man dead for thousands of years, who no one has ever heard speak (audibly or through video) are a sketchy bunch.

Also, trusting a man who is behind the majority of human thought is a HUGE risk. To just blindly agree with and follow the theories of such a person would be one of the most dangerous things a person can do.

But then again - everyone still trusts Pythagoras.

greedoniz wrote:He says in the God Delusion that the existence of God is incredibly unlikely and he is as sure as he can be that he/she/it doesn't exist.

Irrespective of what he's said, it still might be the case that it was God's plan and he exists. It is impossible to give a probablility of the existence of God, because everything might be God's work. It all comes down to faith.

I personally rationalise the whole thing down to my theory which gives no indication as to the existence of God but gives me no real reason to belive in him, so I don't.

Demitri wrote:But then again - everyone still trusts Pythagoras.

They trusted Newton too, but he was wrong. They trusted him right up until he was proved wrong.

It's times like these I wish this forum were threaded, rather than chronological, because this is likely to branch; certainly if people introduce religion, which is a whole new kettle of worms.

The way I see it, everyone has some belief, superstition, or some other thing in their mind that wouldn't stand up scientifically. Some irrationality. But that's where (IMO) school comes in. School and education doesn't exist to just cram a load of sh*t into peoples' heads. It's important because it hacks away at the irrational things in people that are dangerous or insane. This is why I get scared or angery when fundamentalists try to dissolve the separation of church and state (I'm not sure if the UK has a similar thing). The movie documentary "Jesus Camp" (find it on amazon) shows what happens when the irrationality is not only kept alive, but nurtured.

I just realised I was describing the effects of the belief in god instead of the subject at hand, which is about the existance of one. It would be a shame to delete it though...

i like to simplify....

if you choose to believe in something, then it exists for you....dont worry about trying to prove or disprove it to others..there's no point...

ask yourself questions, try to find the answers if you will...be nice to one another as much as you can...do what you want when you want, as long as you dont harm others or negatively influence them on purpose, then whatever you choose is fine by me...

in the words of the late George Harrison:
The farther one travels
The less one knows
The less one really knows

Arrive without traveling
See all without looking
Do all without doing

how lovely...

It's highly unlikely that she would speak to you, a total stranger, in the middle of the street. You have absolutely NO PROOF that she would even consider dating you (let alone stand in a public area with you and hold a conversation). Perhaps in the past you have approached beautiful women who have said no, laughed, yelled, screamed for help - etc. Perhaps there is personal experience from the past that says this will end VERY BADLY.

But does that mean you shouldn't bother crossing the street?

Maybe not, though personally I would choose not to, based on the evidence. Though what I would know is that she IS there, she probably would answer me, even if it wasn't what I wanted to hear, and the reality would probably be backed up by my previous evidence.

When I tried to speak to god (and I did), there was no evidence anyone was there, I didn't get an answer, good or bad, and nothing I was doing could be back up by hard evidence (except the evidence that told me my prayers were never answered).

abraxux wrote:

ask yourself questions, try to find the answers if you will...be nice to one another as much as you can...do what you want when you want, as long as you dont harm others or negatively influence them on purpose, then whatever you choose is fine by me...

But beliefs in religion do harm people. Whether it is terrorism, war or prejudice. The holy books say a lot of nasty things. And when I went to church, one of these books was often refered to as the 'TRUTH'.
If that is the case, I can't imagine why anyone who is female or/and gay could go anywhere near a church.

(Numbers 31:7-18

Moses (yes, the one we are taught about in sunday school), Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

hang on a minute there...i never said anything about religion not harming people...in my first post i did actually state that im an atheist...

its freedom of choice thats all...and something that cannot be altered by reasoned debate...simple...you just can't...im sure there's exceptions, but its usually an internal change...

but i would also say that Dawkins or whoever else show the same fervent beliefs the same as a fundamental christian does...everythings so rock solid within their minds..i find that all fascinating...

years ago we didnt know about atoms, people could of argued that "well, atoms cant exist, cos there's no scientific proof of it..." ..but it doesnt stop something existing just cos it hasnt been discovered yet though...

im just using the same argument but twisting it around a little...sorry...

what i was saying in previous post was purely "ah...wouldnt it be a grand idea if we all just did and believed in what we wanted to - kept it to ourselves, and as long as we were all nice and decent to one another then lets leave it at that..."

rather a hippy ideal, but a nice simple one after all...

Aplogies, I think I twisted your point slightly so I could make mine. Its funny how people who probably pp% the same belief, can debate the finest details. This is probably because there are no strong arguments for a higher power, and us atheists (being the argumentative types that we usually are) keep each other amused over the minor points. I do enjoy a good argument though!

years ago we didnt know about atoms, people could of argued that "well, atoms cant exist, cos there's no scientific proof of it..." ..but it doesnt stop something existing just cos it hasnt been discovered yet though...

Yes, but 2000 years ago people didn't say they did with no proof. Once people did did believe in atoms, it was backed up by science and evidence. The belief in God is just a theory of how the universe began, along with other theories like the big bang. They should be aproached in the same way.

but i would also say that Dawkins or whoever else show the same fervent beliefs the same as a fundamental christian does...everythings so rock solid within their minds..i find that all fascinating...

But there is a difference between fundamentalist beliefs with evidence, and fundamentalist beliefs with no evidence. I fundamentally believe that without my head, I will die, and I fundamentally believe that if I jump out of my window, I will drop to the floor at a set speed. This doesn't make me irrational, and it keeps me alive. These beliefs are also backed up by evidence. Unlike other fundamentalist beliefs.

what i was saying in previous post was purely "ah...wouldnt it be a grand idea if we all just did and believed in what we wanted to - kept it to ourselves, and as long as we were all nice and decent to one another then lets leave it at that..."

Agreed

They trusted Newton too, but he was wrong. They trusted him right up until he was proved wrong

But that is the major advantage to science over dogmatic religion. Science, or should I say good science, is never made up of hard unwaverable facts but theories that are yet to be disproven. The second a theory comes forward that disproves or improves on an old idea then this is changed and a new undestanding is come upon.
Religion on the other hand has rules, regulations and ideas from cultures hundreds or thousands of years old which are hard or impossible to change due to the fact that they come from an invisible sky fairy.

Also when engaged in a intellectual discussion concerning the exisitence of God I find the argument of faith an argumental cop out.
A discussion or argument is a when a process of a proposition followed by the opposition using evidence to counter it. Saying I just believe is the right of anyone to say obviously but in an argument is actually a non argument, it goes no-where. (I've not explained that very well)

Eg

Proposition
Santa does not exist as he is an invention. evidence for this is that it is impossible to delivery presents to everyone in 24 hours....etc

Answer

Well I have faith he does.


It kills any proper discussion dead without leading to any real conclusion.
And finally burden of proof with the people who believe rather than the other way around. If you believe in something which you truly "know" is fact then you have burden of proof.

I need a drink

Greendoniz...I salute you!

Couldn't agree more!

hmmm..with the atoms thing though, it shows that atoms have always existed way before they were scientifically discovered and proven to be so...

so, taking that argument forward means that maybe quite alot of other things exist but have not been scientifically proven....yet...

But they didn't believe in atoms until relatively recently. Yet people have always believed in an all powerful, all knowing god. A scientic theory, like atomic structures was, comes about about through observation, previous evidence, etc. There are things we haven't yet discovered, that I'm sure we will soon, but I don't benieve in them yet. How could I. I don't know what is going to be discovered to believe in (maybe custard monsters...who knows). And it would be irrational to believe otherwise. Never mind living my life around such a belief.
I understand the point you are making. Basically, just because we have no proof, doesn't mean we wont in the future. But that can be said for an infinite amount of things (from custard monsters to God), which surely makes the argument redundant.

I am very religious in the sense I am utterly puzzled by existence and the mystery of the universe. But, the likely hood of the existence of a personal god is as low as the likelihood that father christmas exists. Chances of an afterlife does not look good, but an after life is I suppose theoretically possible. Chances for an after life for a human might however not be greater than the chances that for example goats or hamsters have an afterlife.

well, i dont think it makes it redundant...i look forward to custard monsters...and their single cream children...

i dunno, my problem with these kinda things i find, is that i never completely agree or disagree with everything...everyone has their own agenda or bias as it were, regardless of whether they are aware of it or not...

i feel thats the trap people fall into, especially with authors, is that they identify with the author's points to some degree, but maybe not absolutely all...

yet rarely feel the need to explore alternatives because overall their belief matches theres...so they then champion that person's books/films/view points as their own, without induvidualising (is that a word?) it all...

For example, where do our thoughts come from? no one can say absolutely where for definate..there's theories..but we cant say where can we...not precisely...

it could be a mix of the concious/subconcious/unconcious mind...but then when you add in dreams, and the natural deletion process our brain does for us so we can actually function on a daily basis...well...who really knows?!

Agreed abraxus, it doesn't make the argument redundant. The difference between custard monsters and God is that God has some basis - namely the Bible. Whether or not that constitutes as proof to you or not is neither here nor there; what is important is that it is proof enough for some. There is some kind of reason for believing in God which is why it is worthy of debate. Currently there are no reasons for believing in Custard Monsters, or any other number of such things, and so they are not worth bothering with right now.

As for the Hard Problem of Consciousness... I don't think there'll ever be an answer.